Re: Google App Engine and Wicket
Both articles avoid the DiskPageStore problem by using the HttpSessionStore,
however if you do a search through the mailing list archives for
HttpSessionStore you'll find numerous references to problems in using it in
the long term and especially in a real, production application, so I don't
think that's a good long term solution, so my original question still
stands. Is there an alternative or is Wicket perhaps not well suited for use
in the App Engine.
It's probably a good idea to have a specialized implementation of
ISessionStore for App Engine that uses whatever makes sense with App
Engine for medium term storage ('cause that's what it is... short term
storage is the current page, which is typically local memory, and
older pages are used for the duration of the session, and typically
just keeping the last few in memory suffices.
Eelco
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Google App Engine and Wicket
Maarten Bosteels wrote: But AFAIK GAE doesn't use/guarantee sticky sessions, so I am afraid you can't rely on local memory. App Engine uses multiple web servers to run your application, and automatically adjusts the number of servers it is using to handle requests reliably. A given request may be routed to any server, and it may not be the same server that handled a previous request from the same user. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/runtime.html#Requests_and_Servlets It would be interesting to test the performance of an ISessionStore backed by the App Engine datastore. FYI, I've put a app. with a static variable counter (just a static, not in session). And since two days there, the counter is maintained. So I guess they solution uses something like Terracotta. BTW, they web server is Jetty. Adriano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: IMPORTANT: Nabble posting disabled due to spam
Slightly o/t ... Is there a way, in Gmane to limit the view to a bookmarkable tree of responses to a single thread? The frameset doesn't work for me since the articles I'm looking at don't appear in the URL. The article specific url doesn't work for me since it doesn't provide any context or reference to the tree. Nabble does this http://www.nabble.com/serialVersionUID-td23001300.html Can Gmane do something similar? http://news.gmane.org/group/gmane.comp.java.wicket.user/last=/force_load=t http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.wicket.user http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.wicket.user/66353 Thanks, -Luther On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Reinout van Schouwen rein...@gmail.comwrote: Op maandag 30-03-2009 om 11:54 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Martijn Dashorst: I've disabled posting through the Nabble interface because they don't seem able to prevent spam coming through their interface. If you want to ask a question, please subscribe to the list. If you don't want to do that, complain with Nabble support to improve their spam filtering. For people who dislike the large volume of mail caused by the mailinglist, I recommend the Gmane nntp/web interface: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.wicket.user regards, -- Reinout van Schouwen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: serialVersionUID
I've always seen it done as public. Anyways I checked the javadoc and the access modifier does not matter. On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Eelco Hillenius eelco.hillen...@gmail.comwrote: The purpose of the *public* static final long serialVersionUID is for long Why do you stress *public*? private is the norm for serialVersionUID. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Google App Engine and Wicket
Good news: http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java/msg/f50bbb131dc524c1 quote HttpSessions will work out of the box if you enable them in your appengine-web.xml. We do not guarantee that all requests for the same session go to the same JVM, but persistence of sessions is managed behind the scenes with the datastore and memcache. You are, of course, free to use the memcache and/or datastore API's directly if you want more control. /quote Maarten On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes adrian...@uol.com.br wrote: Maarten Bosteels wrote: But AFAIK GAE doesn't use/guarantee sticky sessions, so I am afraid you can't rely on local memory. App Engine uses multiple web servers to run your application, and automatically adjusts the number of servers it is using to handle requests reliably. A given request may be routed to any server, and it may not be the same server that handled a previous request from the same user. http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/runtime.html#Requests_and_Servlets It would be interesting to test the performance of an ISessionStore backed by the App Engine datastore. FYI, I've put a app. with a static variable counter (just a static, not in session). And since two days there, the counter is maintained. So I guess they solution uses something like Terracotta. BTW, they web server is Jetty. Adriano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: JOptionpane dialog windows
I'm not sure if I understand this right, are you talking about javax.swing.JOptionPane? While wicket shares some concepts with swing and maybe the TreeModel classes, it has nothing to do with swing except both are loosely based on the same principles, event driven etc. So no, you cannot use swing components in a wicket application, except you are talking about embedding an applet or something, which would be a bad idea from my POV. But maybe I misunderstood you. bw, Martin 2009/4/11 Vladimir Zavada zava...@gmail.com: I have a question about using JOptionPane dialogs in my wicket application. Is it safe to use them? Is it better to use javascript alert or JOptionPane dialog? thx for your opinion - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Refreshing page / onBeforeRender() issue
I have a web page with a simple design where a NavigationPanel
contains a few links which replace the main panel with other panels.
My problem is that when I initialize this web page, it creates all of
the panels which will eventually replace a main panel (according to
the link in the NavigationPanel that the user has clicked) by calling
their constructors. Since the constructors initialize a bunch of
components and also retrieve data from a database, it takes a long
time to render the web page since it is also loading all of the other
panels.
Since I want to perform a kind of lazy loading (I only load the
components of the panels if the user has clicked on the corresponding
link in the NavigationPanel), I moved the code where I initialize the
components to the onBeforeRender() method instead of the constructor.
It worked fine for the first time I clicked a link but if I re-clicked
it, a wicket error would pop up since I was trying to add new
components that had already been added.
My solution was something like:
protected void onBeforeRender() {
super.onBeforeRender();
if(!firstTime) {
return;
}
// create the components used in this panel
...
firstTime = true
}
This way the components are created only if it is the first time I am
loading the panel.
My question is, is there a better or automatic way of doing this through wicket?
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Refreshing page / onBeforeRender() issue
Thank you for your mail. I am presently on vacation and will return April 14th. If you need urgent assistance, please email supp...@bookingbooster.com. You can also reach our Support via Skype callto://premiersupport Thank you Best regards, Nick Wheeler Booking Booster.com t: +44 (0)1273 573851 e: integrat...@bookingbooster.com a: The Brighton Forum 95 Ditchling Road Brighton BN1 4ST East Sussex United Kingdom Booking Booster is the smarter, easier and more elegant way to update agent websites. Save time, Boost Bookings with: http://www.bookingbooster.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: serialVersionUID
Nice. I think thats actually more important than we've been giving it credit for in this thread! - Brill Pappin On 12-Apr-09, at 12:51 AM, Luther Baker wrote: I don't know much about it ... but would something like Terracotta use/require/leverage the serialVersionUID for something not so obvious in normal, singly homed deployments? I think I understand that it helps confirm or explicitly 'version' components that might be working together or across, say, JVM boundaries - but it seems like, if not explicitly provided, a default value is built automatically and, unless I want an older version to work with a newer version, I am fine just letting that happen. In fact, unless I am really abiding by serialVersionUID rules (changing it explicitly - every time I make a relevant, corresponding change to the containing class) - I'm not really gaining any functionality that the runtime can't already do. In fact, unless rigorously maintained, it seems I could likely end up with two different compiled versions with identical, explicit serialVersionUIDs - which surely seems worse then leaving it alone? -Luther On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes adrian...@uol.com.br wrote: Brill Pappin wrote: Actually i don't think a missing one will cause that to fail unless there are a lot of incompatible changes. Just one incompatible change of class stored in the session and it will not be deserialized. However... even if it does matter, *in no way* should anyone depend on a serialized session to store data if your app can't recover from a clean session, you have bigger problems than not adding a serialVersionId. Hum? What about stateful pages, which is the Wicket market? If you can control your serial IDs, you have the chance of write custom deserializers. That does not means you can't with an absent ID, but AFAIU just the inclusion of one field and it will change making the deserialization fail. Adriano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: serialVersionUID
It wouldn't because its not really meant as an accessible member of the class. It's used at a lower level and would be accessible regardless of the scope. - Brill Pappin On 12-Apr-09, at 1:46 PM, Ben Tilford wrote: I've always seen it done as public. Anyways I checked the javadoc and the access modifier does not matter. On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Eelco Hillenius eelco.hillen...@gmail.comwrote: The purpose of the *public* static final long serialVersionUID is for long Why do you stress *public*? private is the norm for serialVersionUID. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Refreshing page / onBeforeRender() issue
you should only create the panels when the user clicks on the link
add(new link(..) {
onclick() {
panel=new somepanel(...);
((mypage)getpage()).setcontentpanel(panel);
}
}
-igor
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Henrique Boregio hbore...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a web page with a simple design where a NavigationPanel
contains a few links which replace the main panel with other panels.
My problem is that when I initialize this web page, it creates all of
the panels which will eventually replace a main panel (according to
the link in the NavigationPanel that the user has clicked) by calling
their constructors. Since the constructors initialize a bunch of
components and also retrieve data from a database, it takes a long
time to render the web page since it is also loading all of the other
panels.
Since I want to perform a kind of lazy loading (I only load the
components of the panels if the user has clicked on the corresponding
link in the NavigationPanel), I moved the code where I initialize the
components to the onBeforeRender() method instead of the constructor.
It worked fine for the first time I clicked a link but if I re-clicked
it, a wicket error would pop up since I was trying to add new
components that had already been added.
My solution was something like:
protected void onBeforeRender() {
super.onBeforeRender();
if(!firstTime) {
return;
}
// create the components used in this panel
...
firstTime = true
}
This way the components are created only if it is the first time I am
loading the panel.
My question is, is there a better or automatic way of doing this through
wicket?
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Refreshing page / onBeforeRender() issue
How can I be sure that there is only 1 instance of somepanel? If the user
clicks 10 times the link, 10 different panels would be created in memory.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
you should only create the panels when the user clicks on the link
add(new link(..) {
onclick() {
panel=new somepanel(...);
((mypage)getpage()).setcontentpanel(panel);
}
}
-igor
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Refreshing-page---onBeforeRender%28%29-issue-tp23016450p23017567.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Refreshing page / onBeforeRender() issue
not exactly
everytime you click you would do:
{contentpanel.replace(newpanel); contentpanel=newpanel; }
the last line: contentpanel=newpanel; frees up the reference to the
old panel which will be garbage collected
-igor
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:55 PM, quiqueq hbore...@gmail.com wrote:
How can I be sure that there is only 1 instance of somepanel? If the user
clicks 10 times the link, 10 different panels would be created in memory.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
you should only create the panels when the user clicks on the link
add(new link(..) {
onclick() {
panel=new somepanel(...);
((mypage)getpage()).setcontentpanel(panel);
}
}
-igor
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Refreshing-page---onBeforeRender%28%29-issue-tp23016450p23017567.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
